Revisiting the Bush Deficits

Tuesday, 16 June 2009 00:59

On a web board I frequent, the claim was made - for the umpteenth time - by someone of a more liberal/Democrat bent than I that "Bush created massive deficits after Clinton left us with surpluses!!!" And how many times do we hear from fellow Conservatives that the GOP spent like drunken sailors? Well, I've had enough.

First off, this claim shows a tremendous lack of knowledge about how our Government functions. Here's a hint (well, more like a 2x4 upside the head): the President does NOT write the budget; the House does. Then the House sends the budget to the Senate for amending and its own vote. Then back for conference and a full vote by the Congress. THEN it goes to the President.

So I went digging out some data. And I found the following (summarized and graphed):

The red squares indicate when the GOP was in control of the House and the Senate. The blue squares indicate when the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate. The purple squares indicate when the GOP controlled the House, the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Anything striking jump out at you? For both Democrat (Clinton and Obama) and Republican (Bush) Presidents, we see that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP - both houses - the budget deficits FELL.

And when either - or both - houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, the deficits rose.

The data's pretty clear; if we want fiscal conservatism, then the GOP - the more Conservative party - MUST recapture the Congress - BOTH houses. Getting one, or the White House is not enough. Leaving the Democrats in control of either chamber of Congress will not solve the problem; only a Conservatve takeover of Congress can reverse the debts we're accumulating.

Comments

Add New

Dave - Congrats - great info

|24.220.164.xxx |2009-07-14 18:41:24

This puts recent history into context with the facts! Thanks.

p.s. I think in the beginning where
you say "First off, this claim shows a tremendous lack of ignorance about how our Government
functions. "
perhaps you mean "lack of knowledge" rather than "ignorance"?

Reply | Quote

Shanghai Dan - Good catch...

|70.193.3.xxx |2009-07-14 19:04:59

Yes, I meant lack of knowledge... Fixed!

Reply | Quote

randy woolf - mr.

|74.66.71.xxx |2010-06-08 05:22:52

hmmm...do you know about this?

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/201
0/01/cato_dont_blame_1.htm

you should...also, are you including the cost of the iraq war in the
bush deficits? you should, even though he didn't. and it's interesting that your chart leaves out
the rah rah reagan and bush the 1st years...

Reply | Quote

Shanghai Dan - Y

|72.102.253.xxx |2010-06-08 09:34:11

Yes, the Iraq war is in there. It's the debt addition - real actual deficits.

As far as Reagan
and the first President Bush, neither had deficits anywhere close to what President Obama has
created. In fact, TOTAL Federal spending - on and off budget - did not reach $1.6 trillion (Obama's
first deficit, and likely his second as well) until 1997. His excess spending is more than the sum
total of every dollar the Federal Government spent for any year prior to 1997.

So you want to
talk Bush 1 or W or Reagan deficits? Great. Here's an exercise for you: who had the greater
deficits, Reagan in his 8 years or President Obama in his first year?

Here's another for you:
which built bigger debt, Reagan and George HW Bush combined in 12 years, or President Obama in 18
months?

Which spent more over receipts, Bush and the GOP from 2001 to 2007 (when Pelosi, Reid,
and Obama took over the budget) or President Obama in his first 13 months?

Your answers will be
most enlightening!

Reply | Quote